Polygamy-- let's spread the love.

[Chou Toshio]

Since the Gay/Straight marriages are getting so much support, I thought I'd open up discussion for a subject that's close, but much less discussed-- polygamy.

First let me say that I am not at all trying to troll the Gay/Straight thread-- let's try to keep the subjects independent as much as possible. Let's just stick to the facts.

Polygamy discussed here would be any form of marriage that involves more than 2 people. A man with 2 wives, a woman with 2 husbands, or 3 or 4 or 12 people who are all married to each other-- why not?

Some facts about Polygamy:

-Multiple romantic/erotic relationships occur between full, consenting adults, without any repercussions or harm to those around them. They're not hurting anyone!

-Polygamy has been traditionally practiced across the world, and still is to this day in many countries, especially in Africa. This is closely tied to the fact that

-Polygamy actually makes biological sense from a reproductive standpoint. Stronger/smarter men (men with means to generate greater wealth/resources) take as many wives and have as many children on them as he can afford. Ie. fitter males have more children.

Katsu Rintaro, a great man of the Japanese modernization era and one of the leaders of the last era of the bakufu, preached that great young men of purpose should sire as many offspring as possible for the benefit of society. Katsu had countless live in maids who all bore him children in addition to his wife-- this was completely acceptable of course.

Even in the opposite relationship, allowing women to have multiple partners allows women to pursue their desire to acquire the seed of "greater" men while still enjoying the income and bearing a child or two of a husband who is a "lesser" man-- something that happens continuously, just that with polygamy would be out in the open instead of in the closet.

Heck, many scientists and researchers of many fields even believe humanity isn't meant to be monogamous.

-"I can't help it if I'm born gay or straight"-- Polygamy surmounts that completely! EVERY human on the planet is programmed to have interest in multiple partners-- there is no here or there; if you are born human, you are "oriented" to want multiple partners. We can't help it right??? Why not acknowledge it!

-They're not hurting anyone!

-Oh religion - lol, no one at Smogon listens to it anyway

-There's no compelling reason why 2 people is such a great number. Who is to say that 2 people (gay, straight, whatever) can raise children better than 4, 8, or 12 people? Why should I grow up with only 1 or 2 male role models, when I can grow up with 9! If everyone's happy about the arrangement, what's the problem here!

-Polygamy will also help people in those nasty love triangle things.


Ok, it might be obvious by the tone of the thread that I don't actually think Polygamy is a great thing for society-- but I am not meaning to troll, and honestly want to discuss this subject in earnest. Sounds much more interesting than talking about Gay relations we all generally agree on anyway.

Seriously-- can anyone think of any real, compelling reasons why multi-amorus relationships should not be recognized by the state?

In the case of 3 or more people who are commited to each other, responsible adults-- why should they not receive the same benefits of marriage? Why should they not have the chance to adopt?

Consider this now open for discussion.


PS-- They're not hurting anyone!

 

[popemobile]

Historically, power in polygamous relationships has been grossly one-sided towards males having most of it over numerous women.

so "they're not hurting anyone" isn't exactly accurate

 

[Chou Toshio]

^What does that have to do with anything? I don't get it.

This is the modern age-- we can let people do what they want. If it's laws we're talking about, we just make the laws just as fair to women who want multiple partners as men.

After that, it's up to the people involved to agree on their relationships-- just like between couples. Why should the government or society reign in on people who are just loving whom they wish to love, in the shape they wish to love?

If a woman doesn't want to be with a man who takes multiple wives, or she doesn't like the other woman he's chosen, she's free to leave him. Same way around-- if a man can't deal with his wife having another wife or husband, he's free to leave her too. Just because some people can't make it work doesn't mean the government should stop those who can make it work.

If Polygamy were legalized, and accepted by a more open-minded society, than more people would be able to make it work in time as well. Don't be discriminate just based on unrelated, and backwards historical examples.

 

[popemobile]

it's naive to think that similar results from polygamy wouldn't happen, even in the "modern age"

 

[Chou Toshio]

What could happen? Go ahead and try and give an example of what problems could arise from legal polygamy.

 

[popemobile]

a society where men typically have more power than women could lead to women being coerced, whether by legal or illegal means, into polygamous relationships.

shocker, I know

 

[Myzozoa]

Again as I said in the marriage thread, this discussion is centered around (or should be) the institutionalized benefits of any such unions. I would suggest all unions between consenting adults be governed by domestic partnership, which both avoids potential conflict with religion and also avoids privileging people based on their sexuality (which doesn't enter into the equation). Any people living in the same place my enter into a domestic partnership.

Though I think that the culture of polygamy (classically multiple wives) has developed out of male hegemony, with men running a harem. So when I think of polygamy I automatically associate it with the oppression of women in religious society. Obviously this is just my own construction of polygamy, there are many examples of very equal relationships with multiple partners, menage e trois and all that. But I don't think the dynamic is the same in polygamous relationships. Maybe I just can't see it, but I think it's really hard just to keep a stable close relationship with one woman, let alone another man or woman.

Katsu Rintaro, a great man of the Japanese modernization era and one of the leaders of the last era of the bakufu, preached that great young men of purpose should sire as many offspring as possible for the benefit of society. Katsu had countless live in maids who all bore him children in addition to his wife-- this was completely acceptable of course.

Yeah if you are using this an example of polygamy that doesn't objectify women and quintessentially demonstrate male dominance, you did it wrong on an unbelievable level. Traditional Japanese culture is quite misogynistic, with women expected to fulfill classic gender roles as homemakers. "Like Christmas caked, women are too old after the 26th." I don't care enough to translate the proverb properly, but most examples coming out of Japanese culture are going to be ridiculous.

 

[vonFiedler]

Historically, power in polygamous relationships has been grossly one-sided towards males having most of it over numerous women.

so "they're not hurting anyone" isn't exactly accurate

Historically, power in any relationship has been grossly one-sided towards males having most it over women.

 

[Chou Toshio]

a society where men typically have more power than women could lead to women being coerced, whether by legal or illegal means, into polygamous relationships.

shocker, I know

This will happen whether you legalize polygamy or not. Legal polygamy would hardly be the heart of the problem in the equation when such ill-willed people and weak-hearted people are mixed into relationships.


@Myzozoa-- again the fact that some people can't make it work shouldn't be grounds to stop all people from doing it. Also, just because some form of polygamy which may or may not have been wrong at one point of time, hardly reflects on people who desire polygamy here and now-- it's unfair to ban polygamy simply on a matter unrelated as that.

Love comes in all shapes and forms-- who are we to judge with our own narrow notions of love?

 

[popemobile]

Historically, power in any relationship has been grossly one-sided towards males having most it over women.

more pronounced and more potential to be exploited in polygamous relationships. Also, just because it happens in other forms of relationships doesn't justify making it legal.

 

[X5Dragon]

As long as its consensual I don't see the problem. I don't think I'm emotionally able to treat more than one woman fairly which is a requirement in Islam so I think I'll just stock to one happy relationship and make the most of it. But on topic there is nothing wrong with it and the only serious objections that could be raised would be ones about bureaucracy.

 

[Myzozoa]

@Myzozoa-- again the fact that some people can't make it work shouldn't be grounds to stop all people from doing it. Also, just because some form of polygamy which may or may not have been wrong at one point of time, hardly reflects on people who desire polygamy here and now-- it's unfair to ban polygamy simply on a matter unrelated as that.

Yeah that's basically what I said. The state has no place in legitimizing sexualities by deciding who's desires are worthy of receiving benefits and privileges. As long as adults give consent anything is fair game. This does not mean though, that these relationships will not be reflective of larger inequalities and power relationships between genders and thus reinforce oppression. Just like gender-based oppression can manifest in straight and homosexual marriages.

 

[X5Dragon]

I also find it funny that in societies where it is allowed it usually practiced either among the very poor or the very rich.

 

[vonFiedler]

more pronounced and more potential to be exploited in polygamous relationships.

Yeah, I can totally see a group of modern women letting one man have all the power in the relationship. Totally more likely than with just one woman.

Also, just because it happens in other forms of relationships doesn't justify making it legal.

I totally agree. All marriage should be illegal.

 

[popemobile]

Yeah, I can totally see a group of modern women letting one man have all the power in the relationship. Totally more likely than with just one woman.

you are dense

 

[vonFiedler]

you are dense

You are the one who is only framing a concept in terms of how it was practiced hundreds of years ago, or by people who choose to live as if it was the 1800s because modern society says what they do is illegal. Clearly the need to hide their practices in small communities has not been healthy, but that is what happens when you legislate morality.

I just find it amusing that people who are rightly in favor of gay rights would be so conservative when it comes to something else. It gave me a chuckle in the other thread when I saw this;

Unfortunately it takes a while for things to change.

First black people couldn't marry whites.

Now gays can't marry.

After 30 years, who's next?

Watch out left-handed peeps, I think you're next.

Gays weren't NEXT. Gays were oppressed at the exact same time as blacks. People who were liberal when standing up for racial equality are now conservative towards homosexuality. Try telling a white man from the thirties that blacks would be allowed to vote, or a straight man in the sixties that gays would be allowed to marry. When you look at the things we still hold taboo today, polygamy looks downright upstanding in comparison to a few (although shit, if you use internet trends as an indicator it'll probably be bestiality next).

Sexism was NEVER why Polygamy was outlawed, publicly the excuse was the same we use here, that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Which is a pretty absurd argument to bring the bible into given the number of polygamists in it. But beneath that it had much more to do with the trading of land, money, and the consolidation of power that scared anti-polygamists legislators. Moot points considering all that has changed in the past century in first world countries.

 

[elcheeso]

I'm not really sure that trying to start a serious discussion thread with sarcasm and contempt for the subject matter is the best option, but whatever.

Strictly speaking, I don't think polygamy is inherently wrong on a social level (provided everyone is informed and not coerced, etc), but it certainly raises a lot of issues in terms of making it legal. You'd have to consider whether the marriage bonds are between all of the people involved or just two at a time. For example, if X was married to Y, would Y have to be informed before X can marry Z, and if so, if Y disagreed with said marriage, would that mean X has no legal right to go ahead with it? Would X's marriage to Z also make Y legally married to Z? If X and Y were to get divorced, how would this affect Z?

There's also the (obvious) problems of children and property in terms of one or more of those people getting divorced. How would you decide who gets what in divorce proceedings? Would X divorcing Y mean that Z also divorces Y (assuming a group marriage)? Would Z also have to divide his or her property with Y? Who gets child custody? If X and Y were the biological parents of A and were to die in some sort of freak accident, would Z be able to take custody of A over, say, the families of X and Y? There's a lot more questions that need to be answered but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

TL;DR: Polygamy raises a lot of issues that generally aren't present in monogamous marriages that would definitely need to be resolved before I could support it, personally. I don't think making a comparison to monogamous relationships is a good idea since monogamy is ridiculously simple by comparison.

 

[Myzozoa]

Also, wtf?

Polygamy among humans does not make biological sense. The harem model does not work because externalities, rather than genetics, affect who becomes the 'head of the harem.' This is a skewed understanding of biology and sociology of humans of massive proportions. Everywhere I look it seems like men are strong because 'they are strong' and women only become more by "acquiring the seed of stronger men." Outrageously misogynistic. Women can only become 'greater' (wtf does that mean) through men. I would do like a line by line, but it's just so ridiculous as to almost be a lost cause.

Don't worry though, you can get away with this type of bullshit because there is like one woman on smogon and she internalizes the medical construction of gender enough that she was romantically involved with Morm. and wow I'm actually raging really hard at this thread now. Congrats, you have trolled me hard. You have succeeded where so many others have failed. Deck Knight raises his beer to toast you...

 

[Snorlaxe]

i may be pointing out the obvious, but doesnt polygamy just seem.........immoral to you? honestly it has nothing to do with religion (im actually a pretty religious person but i dont know the bible's stance on polygamy, more than likely against it), i just think it seems wrong. doesnt the prospect of having multiple women in your life just seem wrong to you? it certainly does to me, although since you (chou) were raised in a japanese-hawaiin household and i live on the east coast of the united states, we're likely to have a rather different view on such things.

idk, it's not that i think theres some significant reason why it's harmful or anything like that, it just seems very wrong and immoral to me and is something i sincerely hope civilized nations in the world never adopt again.

 

[Improbability]

If the flipside means that women can also have more than one husband, and the arrangement is 100% consensual for all partners involved, then I guess I don't have a problem with it. Good luck with divorce though, and all the repercussions associated with it.

I can't see too many people consenting to this in this modern day and age however, besides those already conditioned to agree with it by cultural beliefs/religion etc.

 

[vonFiedler]

i may be pointing out the obvious, but doesnt polygamy just seem.........immoral to you?

First thoughts on many people's minds when it comes to homosexuality.

It's not like I could truly love multiple women equally. I'd at least think it is unfair to the women, they should also be able to marry multiple men. But then things would be pretty weird cause then I'd have like husband-in-laws or something... nah I think monogamy is fine.

But I can't speak for everyone.

 

[X5Dragon]

Biological sense doesn't make for a good argument since its the foundation of eugenics and arguing we should get rid if handicapped people cause it will improve our gene poor or something.

 

[Layell]

How have we not touched upon the psychological strain and jealousy in polygamous relationships? Many of the older women in these 'healthy' relationships experience it when their husband starts to bang girls half her age because he set up some deal with another family where she is forced against her will to marry into them.

Polygamy has always seemed to be a way to use young girls as a commodity to gain favour with other families, except this time if the guy is already married it isn't about to stop a deal.

 

[X5Dragon]

I don't like stereotyping and we are talking about consensual relationship because everything legal such marriage can be abused such as forced marriages. Polygamy can be justified as offering support, wanting a bigger family, during times of war and supporting widows, etc.

 

[kd24]

i found a yahoo answer that basically summed up my thoughts so ill post it:

The answer to that question is that most Polygamist societies either are two class societies or they become two class societies eventually.

Generally speaking in a society there is roughly the same amount of women as their are men. So a society could maintain itself well enough, through monogamy. One wife one husband. It works out mathematically and everyone is happy.

The only thing is most societies did not do that. Most societies in history allowed more than one wife, though often there may have been a lot of rules about it.

Let us say that one third of the men marry all of the women. Then what do all the other men do?

You have two thirds of the men who are milling about. And then a war starts. Suppose that this war is against strict monogamists (a foreign nation). Who is going to fight harder, the monogamists or the polygamists?

Remember the two third men who are milling about? Do they look to you to be all motivated, to fight for the one third with the wives to you?

Once the fighting begins the monogamist are organized and are a band of the brothers and for most part everyone loves each other, where as the polygamists hate each, at least the two third hate the one third.

So the monogamists win in battle, they institute their laws and there language, and monogamy becomes the law for everyone, because eventually the monogamist take over everyone. The entire world becomes monogamist eventually.

This actually happened. First the monogamist Greeks, then the monogamist Romans, took over the world of Mesopotamia. Whenever the other countries fought against them the Greeks and then later the Romans, were far superior in actual combat. Band of brothers verses people that were jealous and envious and hated each other.

It really is as simple as that. Call it societal Darwinism. The Greco-Roman society is where our laws about marriage primarily come from. All the countries of Europe continued the Greco-Roman tradition of monogamy.

Europe in turn became the preeminent power in the world, thanks in no small part to the policy of monogamy, while at the same time as this was happening, the rest of the world was mostly polygamist.

Monogamy-ism helps social cohesion leading to greater cooperation among the soldier class, and also greater economic prosperity as well (the economic class is likewise more cooperative with each other).

In a nutshell that is why our laws and traditions are the way that they are.

to make it completely illegal, i honestly dont know. but if its striven for by some and immoral by others, that causes a serious divide, especially if its not in just one religion but actually spread out through a country. im not saying we would go to war if polygamy was accepted, but it could definitely create social divisions that we frankly don't need. i dont see how homosexuality could cause such divides.